Patients who lost money by investing in their doctor’s financial scheme will not get justice from the health professions council; at this stage at least, the case is beyond its jurisdiction

Suppose a doctor were to give financial advice to patients, suggesting that they invest in his company at a time when secretly he knew it was in a parlous state. Would this be an infringement of the discipline of the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA)? A recent case suggests not.

Dr David Grieve, whose “investment advice” to many patients caused them significant losses, has just won a case testing whether he can be disciplined by the HPCSA. He was to face allegations of unprofessional conduct in that he “brought the good name of his profession into disrepute” by persuading patients or former patients “to invest in a company in which he was a director whilst he knew … the company was in financial distress”.

As election fever hots up in Malawi, a high court judge has reminded political parties of something many would rather forget: that under certain circumstances the judiciary is obliged to hear and decide party disputes. It could not be denied that courts had jurisdiction over ‘political disputes’ raising issues of a judicial nature, the judge said. And, where appropriate, for example if a party breached its own constitution or acted arbitrarily, judges had to “do their duty” and hear such cases. The reminder came in a case involving contested primaries for the Malawi Congress Party.

A major case on the environmental and human rights of villagers in Zambia was heard in the English courts over two days this week. The appeal concerns the question of where villagers, suing over the pollution of their water via mining action, may bring their dispute. They want the case heard in the UK while Vedanta, the parent company they are targeting, says the “natural forum” for the matter would be Zambia. If the English Supreme Court gives the go-ahead for the case to be heard in the UK, it will have a major impact on many other environmental cases and be a significant step in the development of environmental law, making it easier to hold international parent companies responsible for the actions of their subsidiaries.